sure, he's athletic enough and without this clusterfuck of a coaching staff i think he'll improve greatly no matter what scheme we're in

Rausch

01-13-2009, 06:40 PM

My thoughts are that I'm tired of hearing people complain because we don't have the talent for a 3-4.

Newsflash: we don't have the talent for a 4-3 either. We just put up a record setting suck for sacks. And Dorsey can suck in a 3-4 just as much as he sucked in a 4-3...

Direckshun

01-13-2009, 06:41 PM

sure, he's athletic enough and without this cluster**** of a coaching staff i think he'll improve greatly no matter what scheme we're in

That's my point of view as well.

But I think it's just such a bad fit.

There aren't a lot of 4-3 DTs that have made a successful transition to 3-4 DE.

dorseybowe

01-13-2009, 06:41 PM

He will be better than last year regardless of what scheme.

Sully

01-13-2009, 06:43 PM

it's a tough one for me because I really like dorsey and want him to succeed. But I think we should switch to the 3-4, and he really doesn't have much of a spot in it.

Archie Bunker

01-13-2009, 06:44 PM

This has been troubling me all day and I've come up with nothing. He would be undersized at any 3-4 line spot.

Seems like Spags and Schwartz are 4-3 guys anyway.

beach tribe

01-13-2009, 06:45 PM

There are many ,many different variation of the 3-4. He can play DE in it.

Pestilence

01-13-2009, 06:45 PM

Where would any of our guys fit in a 3-4?

Is DJ an ILB in a 3-4 scheme?

Could Pollard be used as a blitzing 3-4 OLB?

Tank is too small for the NT position.....so where would he fit at?

Ebolapox

01-13-2009, 06:46 PM

My thoughts are that I'm tired of hearing people complain because we don't have the talent for a 3-4.

Newsflash: we don't have the talent for a 4-3 either. We just put up a record setting suck for sacks. And Dorsey can suck in a 3-4 just as much as he sucked in a 4-3...

he showed flashes as a rookie. I expect the 'dorsey is a bust!' shit from fucking n00bs and morons. you aren't either, brad. give the kid a chance--the only stat he didn't beat warren sapp in (comparing rookie stats) was sacks (sapp had three to dorsey's 1)... and take in the fact, for one moment, that sapp had 1) better coaching, 2) better talent surrounding him, 3) wasn't playing out of position.

dorsey will be a beast in a few years. to say bust right now is purely asinine.

Cave Johnson

01-13-2009, 06:46 PM

Luis Castillo plays end for the Bolts, so I would expect Dorsey could do so as well. It's really more our complete lack of 3-4 LBs that would be the sticking point.

AustinChief

01-13-2009, 06:47 PM

This was from a scouting report on him ...

"He projects to work in any defense, but his best position would be as a three technique in the 3-4 defense as he excels when able to operate in space."

Dayze

01-13-2009, 06:47 PM

No.

Period.

not even worth 'trying'. Jesus.

not to mention we don't have LBs for the 3-4.

Pestilence

01-13-2009, 06:48 PM

Dorsey Tank Turk

D. Williams DJ ???? Hali

Sully

01-13-2009, 06:48 PM

No.

Period.

not even worth 'trying'. Jesus.

not to mention we don't have LBs for the 3-4.

But we're chock full of LBs for a 4-3?

beach tribe

01-13-2009, 06:48 PM

No.

Period.

not even worth 'trying'. Jesus.

not to mention we don't have LBs for the 3-4.

I think we're sticking to 4-3. Schwartz, and Spagnoula, are versed in both IIRC

Reaper16

01-13-2009, 06:49 PM

I was thinking about this the other day. Dorsey doesn't seem to fit. I'm still confident that Dorsey is going to develop into the cornerstone for the defense. At the same time, you shouldn't scheme an entire defense around a single guy with some question marks.

So, yeah, its tough. I'm content to wait and see what Pioli and the upcoming coaching staff want to do; there is going to be some controversy either way.

Mecca

01-13-2009, 06:49 PM

No matter what defense this team uses we're going to need a whole new set of LB's so no one should be to worried about that.

Dayze

01-13-2009, 06:49 PM

But we're chock full of LBs for a 4-3?

good point.

we pretty much have sh*t for LBs regardless of line/lb scheme.

:D

Dayze

01-13-2009, 06:51 PM

No matter what defense this team uses we're going to need a whole new set of LB's so no one should be to worried about that.
:clap:
exactly; that's the least of our worries.

Dorsey can't even get good penetration 1 on 1 in A gap consistently.

Gonna ask him to line up heads up against a center? lol. he'll end up in the secondary once the ball is snapped.

warrior

01-13-2009, 07:00 PM

My thoughts are that I'm tired of hearing people complain because we don't have the talent for a 3-4.

Newsflash: we don't have the talent for a 4-3 either. We just put up a record setting suck for sacks. And Dorsey can suck in a 3-4 just as much as he sucked in a 4-3...

Thanks-Made me laugh. :thumb:

RealSNR

01-13-2009, 07:03 PM

DAMMIT SCOTT! :cuss:

AustinChief

01-13-2009, 07:24 PM

:clap:
exactly; that's the least of our worries.

Dorsey can't even get good penetration 1 on 1 in A gap consistently.

Gonna ask him to line up heads up against a center? lol. he'll end up in the secondary once the ball is snapped.
Pretty sure we would need to go get a NT.. Dorsey would be a three technique...

Here is what we would basically be forced to run if we did it with the current roster...

Dorsey / Bulked up Tank / Turk

The biggest issue is a lack of a NT... Dorsey would be fine in the 3-4.. may even give him the space to be a playmaker like we thought he would be.

petegz28

01-13-2009, 07:27 PM

Yes, Dorsey can play DE easily in a 3-4

Basileus777

01-13-2009, 07:28 PM

It really depends on what type of 3-4. I don't think Dorsey would work as a DE in a 2 gap scheme, but he might be able to play DE in a more aggressive 1 gap scheme like they use in Baltimore or Dallas.

AustinChief

01-13-2009, 07:29 PM

Yes, Dorsey can play DE easily in a 3-4Thank you, I was beginning to think I was alone in that opinion

Cornstock

01-13-2009, 07:29 PM

I dont like the idea of having to change dorsey into a 3-4 guy, but if anyone on our team HAD to do it I would put my money on him because of his pure unrefined athletic ablility.

veist

01-13-2009, 07:29 PM

There are already more teams trying to run the 3-4 than there is personnel in the league that is well suited to run the 3-4, why compound our problems?

Rausch

01-13-2009, 07:30 PM

he showed flashes as a rookie. I expect the 'dorsey is a bust!' shit from ****ing n00bs and morons. you aren't either, brad. give the kid a chance--the only stat he didn't beat warren sapp in (comparing rookie stats) was sacks (sapp had three to dorsey's 2)... and take in the fact, for one moment, that sapp had 1) better coaching, 2) better talent surrounding him, 3) wasn't playing out of position.

dorsey will be a beast in a few years. to say bust right now is purely asinine.

I didn't say he was a bust, I said he sucked.

Ebolapox

01-13-2009, 07:35 PM

I didn't say he was a bust, I said he sucked.

which, at this point of his career, is the same goddamned thing. damn, brad--you must really be taking gun's future demise badly.

Basileus777

01-13-2009, 07:37 PM

which, at this point of his career, is the same goddamned thing.

No it's not. A lot of players suck in their rookie years and go on and have good careers.

DaWolf

01-13-2009, 07:46 PM

Let's convert him to a fullback... :p

rambleonthruthefog

01-13-2009, 07:49 PM

pioli can do whatever the hell he wants. the KC defense has sucked at the
4-3 for sometime now. change to the 3-4 and suit #72's fat ass up

sparkky

01-13-2009, 08:00 PM

there will most likely be the old " roster turn-over" thing in the next couple of years so what personnel we have now is only so relevant.

Zouk

01-13-2009, 08:03 PM

Dorsey is way too short to be a 3-4 end.

Rausch

01-13-2009, 08:04 PM

which, at this point of his career, is the same goddamned thing. damn, brad--you must really be taking gun's future demise badly.

Gun made his own bed. Time to go.

I wouldn't call any player a bust after just 1 year. Dorsey did not have a good year. Period.

I also wouldn't say we should avoid doing (possibly) what our new HC and GM want to do because we have a first round pick who hasn't proven anything yet.

Hammock Parties

01-13-2009, 08:04 PM

Dorsey is way too short to be a 3-4 end.

Yay a woman gets it.

Mecca

01-13-2009, 08:05 PM

There are already more teams trying to run the 3-4 than there is personnel in the league that is well suited to run the 3-4, why compound our problems?

That's actually not true, all of the undersized pass rushers in the college game are why teams have switched...

Chiefnj2

01-13-2009, 08:11 PM

I wouldn't let a single player other than perhaps a franchise QB affect how the team should be built. If Dorsey doesn't fit into Pioli's plan then trade him.

Ebolapox

01-13-2009, 08:15 PM

Gun made his own bed. Time to go.

I wouldn't call any player a bust after just 1 year. Dorsey did not have a good year. Period.

I also wouldn't say we should avoid doing (possibly) what our new HC and GM want to do because we have a first round pick who hasn't proven anything yet.

I'll agree with everything you've said here.

cdcox

01-13-2009, 08:18 PM

I wouldn't let a single player other than perhaps a franchise QB affect how the team should be built. If Dorsey doesn't fit into Pioli's plan then trade him.

So what's his trade value? Could we get a late first rounder for him?

xbarretx

01-13-2009, 08:25 PM

Thank you, I was beginning to think I was alone in that opinion

your not the only one AC, for some reason people want to hate on Glenn. they need to at least rant of a guy that deserves it.....like LJ. :cuss:

Direckshun

01-13-2009, 08:26 PM

So what's his trade value? Could we get a late first rounder for him?

I'm thinking he's a 2nd right now.

xbarretx

01-13-2009, 08:29 PM

were NOT trading Dorsey. sweet jesus, there are some serious fair weather's on this board. :shake: you guys think that one guy one a crap defense can make them good. a lack of sacks wasnt Glenn's fault. he took the double teams .... its not his fault our ends run like molasses going uphill.

p.s. IDC if that makes me a homer. :toast: ill drink to the i told you so's once we get better coaching and actually use him to his strengths.

SPATCH

01-13-2009, 08:29 PM

This has been troubling me all day and I've come up with nothing. He would be undersized at any 3-4 line spot.

Seems like Spags and Schwartz are 4-3 guys anyway.

exactly what i was thinking.... if spag is actually coming, i'm pretty damn sure we'll be 4-3 (which i think would be for the best)

aturnis

01-13-2009, 08:30 PM

I dunno, maybe this is why they played Dorsey head up on a lineman all year. Sure they were setting him up for failure, but they may have been seeing if he was capable of playing a full season as a 3-4 DE.

I'm sure Gun NEVER wanted to run the cover 2. It's not his style, Gun like to be aggressive.

cdcox

01-13-2009, 08:31 PM

I'm thinking he's a 2nd right now.

So you think he's lost 2/3rds to 3/4ths of his value since draft day? That's a pretty steep discount for a guy that has only played one year with bad coaching and in the wrong role.

xbarretx

01-13-2009, 08:31 PM

I dunno, maybe this is why they played Dorsey head up on a lineman all year. Sure they were setting him up for failure, but they may have been seeing if he was capable of playing a full season as a 3-4 DE.

I'm sure Gun NEVER wanted to run the cover 2. It's not his style, Gun like to be aggressive.

QFT

smittysbar

01-13-2009, 08:32 PM

were NOT trading Dorsey. sweet jesus, there are some serious fair weather's on this board. :shake: you guys think that one guy one a crap defense can make them good. a lack of sacks wasnt Glenn's fault. he took the double teams .... its not his fault our ends run like molasses going uphill.

p.s. IDC if that makes me a homer. :toast: ill drink to the i told you so's once we get better coaching and actually use him to his strengths.

You might want to go back over some game film. He wasn't doubled all that much, for good reason, they didn't have to.

petegz28

01-13-2009, 08:33 PM

I dunno, maybe this is why they played Dorsey head up on a lineman all year. Sure they were setting him up for failure, but they may have been seeing if he was capable of playing a full season as a 3-4 DE.

I'm sure Gun NEVER wanted to run the cover 2. It's not his style, Gun like to be aggressive.

That is pretty ignorant of a coaching staff to set up a rookie for failure. Good way to ruin an otherwise perfectly good lineman.

cdcox

01-13-2009, 08:34 PM

were NOT trading Dorsey. sweet jesus, there are some serious fair weather's on this board. :shake: you guys think that one guy one a crap defense can make them good. a lack of sacks wasnt Glenn's fault. he took the double teams .... its not his fault our ends run like molasses going uphill.

p.s. IDC if that makes me a homer. :toast: ill drink to the i told you so's once we get better coaching and actually use him to his strengths.

I haven't given up on Dorsey at all. But if we go to a 3-4, you have to ask the question of whether he has more value in a trade or more value possibly playing out of position.

If we stick with the 4-3, I'm just as high on Dorsey as I always was.

Direckshun

01-13-2009, 08:36 PM

So you think he's lost 2/3rds to 3/4ths of his value since draft day? That's a pretty steep discount for a guy that has only played one year with bad coaching and in the wrong role.

I agree.

There's an outside chance some team with nothing to lose might float a late first our way.

But for the most part, most teams are simply going to see Dorsey as too small (even though I think he's fine) and not strong enough to warrant a 1st.

He has a shitload of potential, so if the Chiefs are smart they'll make it a conditional. And of course, he has a decade of a career ahead of him. Absolutely nobody knows what he could become, and Carl's record with high round DTs sucks ass.

That's why you hate to trade young players this young into their contract. Most teams don't like what they've seen in Dorsey, and Carl's record is too spotty to warrant a 1st. A 2nd is more dispensible.

Basileus777

01-13-2009, 08:38 PM

Anyone seriously entertaining trading Dorsey needs to STFU.

xbarretx

01-13-2009, 08:38 PM

I haven't given up on Dorsey at all. But if we go to a 3-4, you have to ask the question of whether he has more value in a trade or more value possibly playing out of position.

If we stick with the 4-3, I'm just as high on Dorsey as I always was.

cdcox, i can live with that. i jsut cant stand the bust talk. was his season spectacular....no but was he bad enough to cut him regardless of his draft position..heck no.

cdcox

01-13-2009, 08:39 PM

But for the most part, most teams are simply going to see Dorsey as too small (even though I think he's fine) and not strong enough to warrant a 1st.

That part is just crazy. He was rated as one of the top college players on every single draft board a year ago. Every one knew what his size and strength were.

xbarretx

01-13-2009, 08:39 PM

Anyone seriously entertaining trading Dorsey needs to STFU.

ill send the rep horse into your town Basileus :toast:

cdcox

01-13-2009, 08:43 PM

Anyone seriously entertaining trading Dorsey needs to STFU.

If we carry over 8 players into 2012 (three years from now) I'll be shocked. Dorsey might be one of them. Right now, I'd only bet on Bowe, Albert, and Flowers.

Basileus777

01-13-2009, 08:46 PM

If we carry over 8 players into 2012 (three years from now) I'll be shocked. Dorsey might be one of them. Right now, I'd only bet on Bowe, Albert, and Flowers.

That's way too few. We have a shitload of young players/rookies on cheap contracts.

Direckshun

01-13-2009, 08:48 PM

That part is just crazy. He was rated as one of the top college players on every single draft board a year ago. Every one knew what his size and strength were.

I doubt their draft boards would be the same after this season.

Do you think he'd be a Top 20 pick if they could do the Draft all over again?

cdcox

01-13-2009, 08:48 PM

That's way too few. We have a shitload of young players/rookies on cheap contracts.

New regimes turn over rosters. We won't do it one year, but in three, it will happen.

Chiefnj2

01-13-2009, 08:51 PM

If we carry over 8 players into 2012 (three years from now) I'll be shocked. Dorsey might be one of them. Right now, I'd only bet on Bowe, Albert, and Flowers.

I agree. Colquitt might make it also.

Direckshun

01-13-2009, 08:52 PM

Keep fucking doubting Brad Cottam.

cdcox

01-13-2009, 08:56 PM

I doubt their draft boards would be the same after this season.

Do you think he'd be a Top 20 pick if they could do the Draft all over again?

Obviously the draft board would change after one season. But some of the players that were under the radar in terms of on the field performance this season will be pro-bowlers and even HOFers in the future. So after the top rookies that made an impact, who would be at the top of the board?

If the draft was done over, would Flowers be drafted before Dorsey? I'm not sure. Flowers had a better season, but I think Dorsey still has a higher top end in terms of potential, and plays a more valued position in the current NFL.

beach tribe

01-13-2009, 08:57 PM

Yeah, let's trade Dorsey in his second season. Unbelievable.

cdcox

01-13-2009, 08:59 PM

I agree. Colquitt might make it also.

Sure. Punters and kickers are an after thought to me. You have to have them, other wise you wouldn't.

cdcox

01-13-2009, 09:03 PM

Yeah, let's trade Dorsey in his second season. Unbelievable.

So if Pioli and the coaches are 1) dead set on going to a 3-4 and 2) they determine that Dorsey isn't suited for it, what is your suggestion? That's all I'm speculating about. Both 1) and 2) are definitely possibilities. My question says nothing about Dorsey being a bust. He could still be a pro-bowl DT in a 4-3, but that does us no good if we go to a 3-4.

kcpasco

01-13-2009, 09:08 PM

So someone explain to me what the good skills of a good NT are in the NFL and why Dorsey might not be able to transition to it.

Mr. BackseatModNuts

01-13-2009, 10:03 PM

it's a tough one for me because I really like dorsey and want him to succeed. But I think we should switch to the 3-4, and he really doesn't have much of a spot in it.

How do you draft a guy at #5, give him $23m guaranteed and then change to a scheme he doesn't fit in? You just can't. Unless someone is willing to give you a top 5 pick for him in this draft, which is unlikely considering his performance this year.

Glenn Dorsey is the future of Kansas City Chiefs football. At least until Stafford/Sanchez get drafted.

Mr. BackseatModNuts

01-13-2009, 10:05 PM

Personally, I still think Dorsey was the best player to come out of that draft. Let's see who's doing what 3 years from now.

boogblaster

01-13-2009, 10:07 PM

The 3-4 right now can't work ... We don't have the horses on the Dline or the speed and toughness at Lbacker ..

petegz28

01-13-2009, 10:07 PM

So someone explain to me what the good skills of a good NT are in the NFL and why Dorsey might not be able to transition to it.

To light to play NT in a 3-4. Dan Saleamua was a good 3-4 NT

petegz28

01-13-2009, 10:09 PM

The 3-4 right now can't work ... We don't have the horses on the Dline or the speed and toughness at Lbacker ..

Disagree...in fact I think Hali would make a better OLB in a 3-4 than a DE in a 4-3

keg in kc

01-13-2009, 10:14 PM

Hard to talk about defense when we don't have a head coach, much less a DC.

Let's say we do go 3-4, theoretically. Dorsey doesn't have the size to play NT. He might work outside, similar to the way I've seen the Patriots use Seymour. Maybe Tank would fit the Wilfork role, I don't know.

boogblaster

01-13-2009, 10:18 PM

Maybe, but Hali hasn't shown much lately ... He should be jellin' now but he's goin' the other way ... Maybe its his bad feet but he sure din't impress me anymore ...

petegz28

01-13-2009, 10:19 PM

Maybe, but Hali hasn't shown much lately ... He should be jellin' now but he's goin' the other way ... Maybe its his bad feet but he sure din't impress me anymore ...

I think our entire defense was handicaped by the coaching staff. No way that many guys can suck that bad.

suds79

01-13-2009, 10:22 PM

If we went to the 3-4, Dorsey would have to move to DE. Honestly? I wouldn't be against trying it.

But we have nobody on the roster who could play NT.

I was thinking we'd have to target that Cody guy from Alabama but I guess he's staying in school. :(

OnTheWarpath15

01-13-2009, 10:26 PM

If we went to the 3-4, Dorsey would have to move to DE. Honestly? I wouldn't be against trying it.

But we have nobody on the roster who could play NT.

I was thinking we'd have to target that Cody guy from Alabama but I guess he's staying in school. :(

Sounds like Vonnie Holliday is going to be released, as is Tank Johnson.

:D

chiefzilla1501

01-13-2009, 10:33 PM

Dorsey is way too short to be a 3-4 end.

It's possible, but I don't think height is nearly important as a 3-4 end as it is for a 4-3 end.

I think Dorsey would play decent as a 3-4 DE. No idea if he could transition to very good or great. Keep in mind that 3-4 DEs are more in the mold of tackles than they are DTs.

I can tell you one thing: Turk McBride is tailor-made for a 3-4 DE. Just throwing that out there right now.

I think it's very possible we bite the bullet and move to a 3-4 and gamble on whether Dorsey's the answer. Then again, if Steve Spagnuolo comes in, we might end up sticking in a 4-3.

chiefzilla1501

01-13-2009, 10:34 PM

If we went to the 3-4, Dorsey would have to move to DE. Honestly? I wouldn't be against trying it.

But we have nobody on the roster who could play NT.

I was thinking we'd have to target that Cody guy from Alabama but I guess he's staying in school. :(

Nose Tackles are hard to find. But keep in mind that if we go 4-3, we have to find 2 pass rushing DEs, both of which are very difficult to find.

Direckshun

01-13-2009, 10:39 PM

I've long thought Turk would be a great candidate for DE in a 3-4.

HMMMMMMMMMMmmm......................................

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-13-2009, 11:13 PM

Thank you, I was beginning to think I was alone in that opinion

Do you at least acknowledge how unimportant that position is in that defense?

The 3-4 is all about the NT and the rush backers. No team in history would spend a top 5 pick on a 3-4 DE.

Zouk

01-13-2009, 11:21 PM

Do you at least acknowledge how unimportant that position is in that defense?

The 3-4 is all about the NT and the rush backers. No team in history would spend a top 5 pick on a 3-4 DE.

Pick #5 is out of the question but pick #6 (Seymour) makes sense?

You and Mecca always with these rules....

FringeNC

01-13-2009, 11:27 PM

I have no idea whether Dorsey can be successful in the 3-4, but I do think Pioli will bring in the 3-4. It's part of the "NE system" and that is what Pioli intends to implement here.

OnTheWarpath15

01-13-2009, 11:29 PM

Pick #5 is out of the question but pick #6 (Seymour) makes sense?

You and Mecca always with these rules....

Interesting that our new GM is at least partially responsible for making that pick in 2001...

Chiefnj2

01-13-2009, 11:31 PM

Pick #5 is out of the question but pick #6 (Seymour) makes sense?

You and Mecca always with these rules....

I'm pretty sure Seymour started on the inside, but you are right about some of the people and all of their "rules".

Basileus777

01-13-2009, 11:32 PM

How high of a pick we spent on Dorsey is pretty much irrelevant now. He's on our roster and we should put him in a position to success regardless if that position was worth the pick. If Dorsey can play 3-4 DE and our coaching staff wants to play a 3-4, there's nothing wrong with having him play that position.

I doubt Dorsey can play DE in a 3-4 though.

keg in kc

01-13-2009, 11:34 PM

Pick #5 is out of the question but pick #6 (Seymour) makes sense? Seymour was drafted (and played) as a tackle, if I remember correctly, he was later moved to end after they drafted Wilfork (and he may still play inside on certain downs for all I know, I haven't watched a lot of recent Patriot games). As I recall, he was a relatively dominant player at tackle, and a key to their early success.

Zouk

01-13-2009, 11:48 PM

Seymour was drafted (and played) as a tackle, if I remember correctly, he was later moved to end after they drafted Wilfork (and he may still play inside on certain downs for all I know, I haven't watched a lot of recent Patriot games). As I recall, he was a relatively dominant player at tackle, and a key to their early success.

But then they took Ty Warren at #13 too. They only get 1 first round pick per year and they used it on the DE position twice. Plus both were 1st half of the 1st round picks.

keg in kc

01-14-2009, 12:18 AM

But then they took Ty Warren at #13 too. They only get 1 first round pick per year and they used it on the DE position twice. Plus both were 1st half of the 1st round picks.That's your fallacy, right there. He wasn't drafted as a 3-4 end. Seymour was drafted as a tackle. And he wasn't moved because he was a bust; he was a pro bowler as a tackle.

mylittlepony

01-14-2009, 01:11 AM

My 3-4 lineup with Haynesworth picked up in FA and Clint Sintim as the chiefs #34 pick:

Didn't the Patriots draft DT Richard Seymor sixth overall and move him to DE in the 3-4?

Ebolapox

01-14-2009, 01:30 AM

as fast as williams is, he'll be a rush-backer in the 3-4. hell, wasn't he something of a sack artist at nebraska?

AustinChief

01-14-2009, 03:03 AM

Do you at least acknowledge how unimportant that position is in that defense?

The 3-4 is all about the NT and the rush backers. No team in history would spend a top 5 pick on a 3-4 DE.

No I wont. you put an athelete like Dorsey in that role and maybe we change the landscape of the position.... don't tie your self into what was... look at what could be....

I remeber as a kid hearing how the West Coast offense was a gimmick... and now how "spread" qbs can't survive in the NFL... wake up and realize that the NFL is gonna change whether you are up to it or not.....

Mecca

01-14-2009, 03:10 AM

Well in fairness the spread QB thing is proving to be mostly true...most QB's from the spread are failures.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-14-2009, 03:47 AM

No I wont. you put an athelete like Dorsey in that role and maybe we change the landscape of the position.... don't tie your self into what was... look at what could be....

I remeber as a kid hearing how the West Coast offense was a gimmick... and now how "spread" qbs can't survive in the NFL... wake up and realize that the NFL is gonna change whether you are up to it or not.....

If you want an athlete at a position, the best athletes in any 3-4 are the OLBs, not the 3-4 DE's. 3-4 DE is for a guy who weighs 290 lbs who can't rush the passer but is good against the run. He occupies blockers while the real threats get to the quarterback.

And Spread QBs haven't done anything in the NFL. What is this illustrious list of Spread QBs?

You know what I remember hearing as a kid? All about the Run N' Shoot. I also remember the Wildcat from just this year. I guess the pistol and the A-11 must be up next.

And Seymour was drafted as a 4-3 DT. No team in the last 10 years has taken a 3-4 end in the top 10. The only one I can think of that even took one in the top 15 was Ty Warren at 13.

Would you have taken Larry Johnson and split him out wide in 2004, or made Tony a Jason Dunn style tight end? Of course not, just like no one would argue that we should have moved Roaf to RG, and why Denver wouldn't have Champ Bailey playing nothing but Tampa 2 soft coverage. Maybe the Lions should make Calvin Johnson a possession receiver, and the Bears can move Urlacher to the strong side, while putting Tommie Harris at LDE. Why would you take your most talented players and put them in less important positions?

milkman

01-14-2009, 04:00 AM

Disagree...in fact I think Hali would make a better OLB in a 3-4 than a DE in a 4-3

I don't think that Hali has the speed to play LB in the NFL.

Mecca

01-14-2009, 04:02 AM

If you put Tamba Hali at OLB in any scheme you are just asking for bad things to happen.

unlurking

01-14-2009, 04:17 AM

That's your fallacy, right there. He wasn't drafted as a 3-4 end. Seymour was drafted as a tackle. And he wasn't moved because he was a bust; he was a pro bowler as a tackle.

So, it was NOT WRONG for Seymour to be drafted as a tackle, and moved to DE even though he was a good tackle.

What is WRONG about doing this with Dorsey?

milkman

01-14-2009, 04:42 AM

So, it was NOT WRONG for Seymour to be drafted as a tackle, and moved to DE even though he was a good tackle.

What is WRONG about doing this with Dorsey?

Seymour is taller and leaner (6'6", 310) than Glen Dorsey (6'1", 297), so he's a better fit as a 34 DE than Dorsey.

Amnorix

01-14-2009, 07:07 AM

Seymour is taller and leaner (6'6", 310) than Glen Dorsey (6'1", 297), so he's a better fit as a 34 DE than Dorsey.

Taller is better for the DE, but 300'ish pounds is about right for Patriots style DEs.

Also, don't get overhwlemed by the need to instantly switch to 3-4. Even BB ran the 4-3 when he first came here, mixing in a little 3-4, because his PERSONNEL at the time would not let him run a 3-4 defense very well.

Even if Pioli and the HC want to go to a 3-4, you should not expect to see it on opening day next year as the primary defensive alignment.

Amnorix

01-14-2009, 07:08 AM

Didn't the Patriots draft DT Richard Seymor sixth overall and move him to DE in the 3-4?

Yes, though he also plays DT when we do a 4 man line, and he has played the occassional nose guard.

jidar

01-14-2009, 11:19 AM

Um.. I'd think it would be unusual for a GM to impose the type of defense he wants to run on a head coach.

FringeNC

01-14-2009, 11:24 AM

Um.. I'd think it would be unusual for a GM to impose the type of defense he wants to run on a head coach.

Normally, I'd say you were right. But in this instance my feeling is that Pioli is going to implement the Patriots system in KC. Pioli's expertise is in searching for players who will thrive in a 3-4 defense. I think it'd be stupid to change that.

Amnorix

01-14-2009, 11:25 AM

That's your fallacy, right there. He wasn't drafted as a 3-4 end. Seymour was drafted as a tackle. And he wasn't moved because he was a bust; he was a pro bowler as a tackle.

Weelllll...he was drafted as a 4-3 tackle and a 3-4 end, really. During his first few years he played inside on the 4-3, outside on the 3-4, and occassionally at NG.

During the horrendous 2002 defensive campaign, our inability to stop the run out of the 3-4 was a big problem. We played more 4-3 than we wanted at that point, but still, our defense was terrible.

Before 2003, we were shaping up to have the same problems, so we traded for Ted Washington in training camp, Seymour moved to DE, and we won the SB.

Before 2004 we solved our NG problems by drafting Wilfork.

Amnorix

01-14-2009, 11:26 AM

Um.. I'd think it would be unusual for a GM to impose the type of defense he wants to run on a head coach.

You're right. But what he may do instead is just hire a coach that he knows will run the 3-4.

Demonpenz

01-14-2009, 11:27 AM

Tamba DJ Williams would be a good start at linebacker

Amnorix

01-14-2009, 11:28 AM

Normally, I'd say you were right. But in this instance my feeling is that Pioli is going to implement the Patriots system in KC. Pioli's expertise is in searching for players who will thrive in a 3-4 defense. I think it'd be stupid to change that.

I tend to agree, which annoys me greatly, as I don't want MORE competition for hard to find 3-4 talent.

OTOH, I note that it's harder to project front 7 players into the 3-4 coming out of college than 4-3 players. Few/no college programs run the 3-4, so you've always got a tough job projecting that DE into an OLB in your system, etc. It's one reason why the Pats have rarely drafted OLBs. It's also why it takes a few years, often, for the college DE to get any good in the 3-4, where he's standing up and sometimes needs to drop into coverage.

KCrockaholic

01-14-2009, 11:44 AM

Where would any of our guys fit in a 3-4?

Is DJ an ILB in a 3-4 scheme?

Could Pollard be used as a blitzing 3-4 OLB?

Tank is too small for the NT position.....so where would he fit at?

I think DJ would be an ILB and Pollard could be the blitzing LB like you said. But I dont think Tank is undersized for as a NT. He's what? 6'2 330? yeah slightly shorter than some, but you dont need a 6'7 monster at NT its good to be a tad shorter than the linemen your facing. It gives you an automatic advantage at having better leverage against the guy your facing...its all about pad level when your on the d-line. With that said, Dorsey doesnt 'look' like he would fit well in the 3-4 because he is a bit smaller than a lot of NT's. But Dorsey has shown he has more drive and a better motor than Tank.

BTW Dorsey is not a bust, or anything close to it...He made great strides throughout the season, improving in each game that gave him valuable time. We will see a big difference next year. But i would expect his talent to peak in his 4th or 5th year. Hes not a Ryan Sims. Itll be ok.

KCrockaholic

01-14-2009, 11:48 AM

Tamba DJ Williams would be a good start at linebacker

I would love to see how Tamba could fit in as a 3-4 OLB. He would be perfect size but would he have the endurance and motor to play it? He really regressed this year. Time to pick it up Tamba!

suds79

01-14-2009, 11:58 AM

What's funny about this thread are the people who are like "so & so wouldn't be good in a 3-4 because he doesn't fit that system."

And they might have very solid points. But what's funny is the notion that we can't move guys around to try new things. Like they're all tearing it up in the 4-3 now. :rolleyes:

If we keep the 4-3, fine. But if we scrap it? I have no problem with that. A lot of these guys on defense need replaced anyways.

It's not going to be fixed in a year.

Fat Elvis

01-14-2009, 12:41 PM

What's funny about this thread are the people who are like "so & so wouldn't be good in a 3-4 because he doesn't fit that system."

And they might have very solid points. But what's funny is the notion that we can't move guys around to try new things. Like they're all tearing it up in the 4-3 now. :rolleyes:

If we keep the 4-3, fine. But if we scrap it? I have no problem with that. A lot of these guys on defense need replaced anyways.

It's not going to be fixed in a year.

We need to convert more safeties to CB....

chiefsngop

01-14-2009, 01:01 PM

Is it even remotely possible?

A couple speculations out there are that Pioli wants to gravitate towards the 3-4 with our defense.

I think whatever determinations you make about our defense have to be tied into what Dorsey, by far our most expensive defensive player (Surtain about to be released), is capable of.

I think it's pretty clear Dorsey's not NT material, but might he get by as a 3-4 DE?

What are your thoughts?

Wow. I don't know how many players, or how much rebuilding you can do in one year.

We have a lot of work to do just to have 3 starting line backers on the field and depth to cover for injuries.

I just don't see how we could put ourselves in the position to need 4 starting line backers plus depth.

Plus the 3-4 requires strong LB play, I think you'd be taking a weakness on this team and magnifying it.

Unless Pioli can pull off some miracle personnel moves, I don't see a conversion to the 3-4 as possible.

We don't have the D-line nor the LB corps to pull it off.

Now if you're talking down the road a little ways, hell as long as he can bring in the guys to pull it off, I'd be fine with it.

But it would be a large undertaking given the current roster.

chiefsngop

01-14-2009, 01:05 PM

I would love to see how Tamba could fit in as a 3-4 OLB. He would be perfect size but would he have the endurance and motor to play it? He really regressed this year. Time to pick it up Tamba!

Don't know that Hali has the killer instincts or intensity to be a LB ???

Chief Faithful

01-14-2009, 01:37 PM

Short is ok for a NT (Pittsburgh Casey Hampton 6'1"), but for Dorsey he would have to gain 25 to 30 pounds. Tank would be a good option at NT with a little more weigh because he is strong as an Ox. Edwards would be better as an NT then DT.

The defense didn't seem to do very well at 4-3 last year so I fail to see how they could do worse in a 3-4. Some players like Tank, Turk, DJ and Williams I suspect would do better in a 3-4.

RustShack

01-14-2009, 01:43 PM

Boone would be a good 3-4 DE.

AustinChief

01-14-2009, 01:46 PM

If you want an athlete at a position, the best athletes in any 3-4 are the OLBs, not the 3-4 DE's. 3-4 DE is for a guy who weighs 290 lbs who can't rush the passer but is good against the run. He occupies blockers while the real threats get to the quarterback.

...

And Seymour was drafted as a 4-3 DT. No team in the last 10 years has taken a 3-4 end in the top 10. The only one I can think of that even took one in the top 15 was Ty Warren at 13.

Seymour(a #6 pick) and Warren seem to be doing pretty damn well as 3-4 DEs.. if we got that kind of production from Dorsey... I'd be more than happy.

Are you saying you wouldn't?

Pestilence

01-14-2009, 01:55 PM

Wow. I don't know how many players, or how much rebuilding you can do in one year.

We have a lot of work to do just to have 3 starting line backers on the field and depth to cover for injuries.

I just don't see how we could put ourselves in the position to need 4 starting line backers plus depth.

Plus the 3-4 requires strong LB play, I think you'd be taking a weakness on this team and magnifying it.

Unless Pioli can pull off some miracle personnel moves, I don't see a conversion to the 3-4 as possible.

We don't have the D-line nor the LB corps to pull it off.

Now if you're talking down the road a little ways, hell as long as he can bring in the guys to pull it off, I'd be fine with it.

But it would be a large undertaking given the current roster.

Here's the thing.....

Even if he does want the switch to a 3-4.......it's not required to all happen in his 1st offseason. He could fill the LB core pretty quickly if he wanted too. He could move DJ to one of the ILB spots and sign Suggs this offseason. Now he has two LB spots to fill. He could put Demorrio Williams at the other OLB spot for next season. Is Williams the best fit? Probably not....but he'll work for now. Trade down in the 1st round (if possible) and draft Maulauga or Curry. You now have 3 of your 4 LBs for the 3-4.

OnTheWarpath15

01-14-2009, 01:58 PM

Here's the thing.....

Even if he does want the switch to a 3-4.......it's not required to all happen in his 1st offseason. He could fill the LB core pretty quickly if he wanted too. He could move DJ to one of the ILB spots and sign Suggs this offseason. Now he has two LB spots to fill. He could put Demorrio Williams at the other OLB spot for next season. Is Williams the best fit? Probably not....but he'll work for now. Trade down in the 1st round (if possible) and draft Maulauga or Curry. You now have 3 of your 4 LBs for the 3-4.

This.

The Ravens, Jets and 49ers didn't change overnight.

Hell, the Jets made all there best players worthless while they switched, and it worked out pretty good for them. We don't really have anyone that changing to a 3-4 is going to profoundly affect other than possibly Dorsey.

HemiEd

01-14-2009, 02:15 PM

Anyone seriously entertaining trading Dorsey needs to STFU.

agreed

Chiefnj2

01-14-2009, 02:18 PM

Here's the thing.....

Even if he does want the switch to a 3-4.......it's not required to all happen in his 1st offseason. He could fill the LB core pretty quickly if he wanted too. He could move DJ to one of the ILB spots and sign Suggs this offseason. Now he has two LB spots to fill. He could put Demorrio Williams at the other OLB spot for next season. Is Williams the best fit? Probably not....but he'll work for now. Trade down in the 1st round (if possible) and draft Maulauga or Curry. You now have 3 of your 4 LBs for the 3-4.

Hope to hell that Stintim falls to the 2nd round, and you've got all the LBs filled.

Pestilence

01-14-2009, 02:20 PM

Hope to hell that Stintim falls to the 2nd round, and you've got all the LBs filled.

Like I said.....it would take more than one year and we have a lot of holes to fill. If he plans on switching over then I can see next year being a 4-3 defense with a lot of swapping with a 3-4. The second offseason would be more of a switch than the 1st offseason.